The point of lectures and symposiums is pure ritual. They say that there is information that it can be spread by people like us to people like you.

See Goffman's lecture on lectures.*

It's why all such things are wastes of time. It always steers to ritual.

The reason that Russ Roberts' econtalk.org conversations are great is that it doesn't do that ritual. The audience is not addressed.

Unless, as recently has started, he moderates a panel before a live audience. Then it always sucks.

--* Whatever his substantive domain, whatever his school of thought, and whatever his inclination to piety or impiety, [the lecturer] signs the same agreement and he serves the same cause : to protect us from the wind, to stand up and seriously project the assumption that through lecturing, a meaningful picture of some part of the world can be conveyed, and that the talker can hve access to a picture worth conveying.

From the quotes it looks like adjectives is what got Milbank into trouble.A few years ago I noticed that liberal columnists used adjectives to color their language more frequently than conservative columnists (at least among the columnists I am aware of). The adjectives served no purpose other than to intensify opinion. "The Iraq War" was always described as "The disastrous Iraq War" or "the illegal Iraq War", even when the reference to the war was tangential to the theme of the column. I am not certain why liberal columnists use colorful adjectives more than conservative columnists. It may have something to do with their education and career. I think that many more liberal columnists start out as regular journalists than conservative columnists.

My understanding is that Dana Milbank meticulously follows the Democrat talking points because he regularly felates farm animals and Democrat operatives have the video. I have no evidence of that, of course. Making stuff up is easier than actual reporting.

"Who is the head of the Muslim peace movement?" The student says, "I guess I am."

This highlights what has bothered me and I think many other non-Muslim Americans since 9/11: When do you hear Muslims condemning Muslim terrorism, Muslim violence against women, Muslim hate speech against non-Muslims, etc.? I am positive that many American Muslims do oppose these things, but they have no platform. The Muslim organizations that have platforms seem to spend most of their efforts decrying what they see as prejudice against Muslims, rather than joining in solidarity with non-Muslim Americans to condemn the actions of the extremist minority of Muslims. This is at the very least a serious tactical error.

The Muslim organizations that have platforms seem to spend most of their efforts decrying what they see as prejudice against Muslims, rather than joining in solidarity with non-Muslim Americans to condemn the actions of the extremist minority of Muslims

If there was such an organization and it was a legitimate one and not a front group like CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood that feigns to be it would be harrassed endlessly by those front groups and their dimwitted apologists on the left which is almost the entire democrat party and most of the media in this country. Don't think that these Muslims don't know that and that's what the MB and CAIR have worked to achieve in order to discourage any such organization from forming.

You know how the media loves to point out how there are Christians who are pretty loose with which beliefs they follow? There are Muslims like that but the media would never highlight it because they'd fear it would be taken the same way (that they are doing it to mock the practitioners or Islam itself) otherwise they'd like to point out that there are "Sunday" only Muslims.

That's an easy one: never, because they fear for their survival. They don't dare condemn Muslim terrorism, for the same reason the "brave MSM" won't even run political cartoons that in any way criticize Muhammed: they don't want to be made a target of violence. They're all scared.

Milbank is typical of the MSM. They jump reflexively to the defense of Moslems, and are eager to find anti-Moslem prejudice.

The most egregious examples I've seen are from Australia. After the street murder of a British soldier by a self-proclaimed jihadist who stood over the body orating to passers-by, Australian Broadcasting Company reports insisted for several days that the killer's motives were unknown. Then after the Boston Marathon bombing, Sydney Telegraph blogger Tim Blair dared to speculate that Moslems might have done it, and was immediately denounced for Islamophobia by an ABC radio host.

We as a country have been fighting the muslim for over 200 years. One day, I hope to wake up and find that everyone finally realizes that there is no such thing as a peaceful muslim. There are only muslims. All you have to do is find one willing to tell the truth to a non-muslim. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

We as a country have been fighting the muslim for over 200 years. One day, I hope to wake up and find that everyone finally realizes that there is no such thing as a peaceful muslim. There are only muslims. All you have to do is find one willing to tell the truth to a non-muslim. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

In his defense, he knows in his heart that his version is true, it's just that he couldn't find the evidence that he knows is there, hidden behind all of the dog whistles and coded language we racist, atavistic, hateful right wingers use as soon as there are no liberals in the room.

Thinking on it for a while, it seems to me that liberal Democrats like Dana Milbank (which are the only kind that are left in the one-winged party) ought to turn over US policy with respect to the Arab world to conservative Republicans. We couldn't possibly do any worse than they have.

Based on the reporting of "Original Mike" above, it has now been confirmed that Dana Milbank fellates farm animals. Two sources say it is likely true. With no video evidence to disprove the allegation there can be no denial. Any denial confirms Milbank's farm animal fellation.

Query this:Why doesn't the Republican Party have a press operation that can reach people with news of Milbank's criminal and immoral behavior?

@Terry,From the quotes it looks like adjectives is what got Milbank into trouble.A few years ago I noticed that liberal columnists used adjectives to color their language more frequently than conservative columnists (at least among the columnists I am aware of).

I'm reminded of a cartoon I saw many years ago.

A man is in a phone conversation, and getting directions from the other person. The directions go something like:

"At the first corner, take a hard right. After the second light, take a moderate left. At the next corner, take a radical right. After about five miles, you'll need to take a middle-of-the-road left..."

After the man writes all this down, he says "I hate getting directions from journalists."